6 ms·
You should probably tell the person who keeps information on their phone that could compromise most US major corporations to stop having that on their phone, or
by CobrastanJorji 3y ago
You should probably tell the person who keeps information on their phone that could compromise most US major corporations to stop having that on their phone, or at least to stop traveling internationally with that phone.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoI have seen in more than one remote first org handbook instructions to wipe your corp devices prior to border transit, and restore upon arriving at your destination.
- ArchOversight 3y agoExcept that CBP claims that within 100 miles of the US border they have jurisdiction.
- xeromal 3y agoThat includes airports as well so it's defacto the entire US
- RajT88 3y agoI guess it's 100 miles from any "external boundary" as well as "points of entry", but not "100 miles from points of entry". https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone But then there's also this: > In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. No matter what CBP officers and Border Patrol agents think, our Constitution applies throughout the United States, including within this “100-mile border zone.”
- ROTMetro 3y agoIgnorance of the law is no defense... unless you are a Federal agent violating people's Constitutional rights. America in a nutshell.
- gammajmp 3y agoThis isn't true. But, 100 miles from our two borders is incredibly abusive enough.
- rand85632 3y agoYou’re forgetting the coastlines, near which a large percentage of Americans live.
- gammajmp 3y agoYou're right. I meant to say that international airports don't yield a 100 mile radius for the CBP to perform arbitrary stops. Shorelines count; the whole situation is ridiculous.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Spooky23 3y agoSo would you suggest that US Customs not operate at ports of entry? I guess we could go back to 1910 and only import stuff and admit people in coastal cities. Make everyone from Europe fly to JFK on the way to Atlanta.
- ceejayoz 3y agoOperating at ports of entry is fine. Pretending I don't have Fourth Amendment rights on one side of the Customs desk at said ports of entry is not.
- Spooky23 3y agoThe customs bubble extends beyond the desk. For example, bonded warehouses. What 4th amendment rights have you been stripped of in every coastal area? Show me how the 4th amendment isn’t a thing in Delaware. Don’t spend too much time though - it’s nonsense.
- ceejayoz 3y agoI said the Fourth Amendment issue is "on one side of the Customs desk at said ports of entry", not "in every coastal area". The idea that you are subject to warrantless seizure of intensely private data on American soil just because you haven't cleared customs yet is a travesty, and I'm glad this ruling has started to address that. As for coastal areas, though, If CBP can stop me away from the border without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion of a crime, that IMO is a Fourth Amendment violation. The ACLU cites specific cases of this happening: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/14_9_15_cbp_100-mile_rule_final.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/14_9... > Between 2006 and 2010 in the Rochester, NY, area, approximately 300 immigrants with legal status were arrested by Border Patrol agents, then released They also cite the regulations establishing the 100 mile rule: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1 defines "reasonable distance" and "external boundary", and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 utilizes those definitions to do things like "without warrant... interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States" and "to board and search for aliens... any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle". It's quite clear that significant parts (all?) of Delaware fall within that claimed jurisdiction.
- rayiner 3y agoMan, that 100 mile thing is one of the most successful misinformation campaigns I’ve seen in law.
- bumby 3y agoCan you elaborate on what's misinformation?
- 49erfangoniners 3y agoThat's nothing. Check out what the U.S. has done for centuries to misinform us all about the treaties it signed with indigenous tribes, technically binding under the Constitutional
- Spooky23 3y ago[flagged]
- hiatus 3y ago> They need to meet the reasonable suspicion standard to initiate a stop. You mean, "it smells like weed"?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 49erfangoniners 3y agoIn this forum right now in fact
- throwaway742 3y agoOdd because I have been detained at CBP checkpoints inside the US without any sort of reasonable suspicion.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nirav72 3y agoAre you a U.S citizen or permanent resident? If not, then the CBP has more flexibility on who they detain.
- throwaway09223 3y agoResident status can't be determined until after detaining someone. Your comment is self-contradictory.
- nirav72 3y agoNot sure how I'm contradictory. If you're a permanent resident, therefore you have a green card. That is a form of documentation you have to show at the CBP counter before they determine if you're lawful alien or U.S citizen. The line for U.S Citizens and permanent residence is the same. Every port of entry in the U.S has a sign that literally says - "U.S Citizens Or Permanent Residence". All other visa holders have a separate queue and detention usually starts after they've determined if a person has a valid visa or not or is a U.S citizen/permanent resident (green card)
- jayofdoom 3y agoStop traveling internationally with that phone: yes, very possible. Stop keeping that information on their phone: not always possible. Many highly-secure places require you to coordinate with an application on your phone when authenticating. In my experience, there is rarely a non-mobile option presented to users.
- bboygravity 3y agoJust a reminder that those same companies store that same information on things like Google Drive and OneDrive. That means any and all of that information is already in the hands of the US government.